• دبیرمقدم، م. (1392). رده‌شناسی زبان‌های ایرانی، سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاهها (سمت).
• شفائی و دبیرمقدم (1398). تحلیل نحوی حالت دهی کنائی در منتخبی از زبان‌های ایرانی: رویکردی کمینه گرا: مجله زبان پژوهی دانشگاه الزهرا، دوره 11، شماره 31 (ص 77-108)
• کریمی دوستان، غ، و نقش بندی،ز. (1390). ساخت کنائی در گویش اورامی، مجله پژوهشهای زبان و ادبیات تطبیقی، دوره دوم، شماره 6، 19-44
• کریمی. (1391). تحلیل نحوی ساخت کنائی بر پایه شواهدی از زبان کردی، مجله زبان پژوهی، سال چهارم، شماره 7، 177-209
• میردهقان، م و یوسفی، س (1391). حالت و حالت نمائی در وفسی. زبانشناخت، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی،سال سوم، بهار و تابستان 1391، شماره 1، 85-10

References

• Aldridge,E. (2004). Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca.
• Aldridge,E. (2008). Generative approaches to ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass: Syntax and Morphology 2.5:966-995.
• Aldridge,E. (2012). ‘Antipassive and Ergativity in Tagalog’, Lingua 122: 192—203.
• Anand,P & Nevins,A. (2006). ‘The Locus of Ergative Case Assignment: Evidence from Scope’, in Alana Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvena  Ndayiragije (eds), Ergativity:  Emerging issues. Dordrecht: Springer. 3—25.
• Baker, M & Vinokurova,N. (2010). Two Modalities of Case Assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28:593-642  (Revised version, as of January 2009)
• Baker,M & Atlamaz,Ü. (2014a). On the Relationship of Case and Agreement in Split Ergative Kurmanji and Beyond. Manuscript, Rutgers University, July 2014.
• Baker,M. (2008). The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Baker,M. (2015). Case: its Principles and its Parameters. Cambridge University Press.
• Baker,M. (2017) and Jonathan Bobaljik. On the inherent and dependent theories of ergative case. In J.coon, D. Massam, and L. Travis (eds). The oxford Handbook of Ergativity, 759-781. New York. Oxford University Press.
• Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 6(3), 291-352.
• Bittner,M & Hale,K. (1996). ERGATIVITY: TOWARDS A THEORY OF A HETEROGENEOUS CLASS. Linguistic Inquiry 27:531–604.
• Bong,G. (1985). Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr. – Cited on p. 2, 13, 96, 152, 153,158, 167, 168, 177, 179, 189.
• Chomsky,N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In H. Lasnik, R. A. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka, Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-155). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
• Chomsky,N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz, Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 1-54). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
• Coon,J & Preminger,O. (2014). Split ergativity is not about ergativity. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Diesing,M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Dorleijn,M. (1996). The decay of ergativity in Kurmanci. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
• Haig,G. (2002). Complex predicates in Kurdish: Argument sharing, incorporation, or what? Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung / Language typology and universals 55:15–48. –Cited on p. 11, 12, 239, 286.
• Haig,G. (2008). Alignment change in Iranian languages: a construction grammar approach (Vol. 37). Walter de Gruyter.
• Karimi, Y. (2010). Unaccusative transitives and the Person-Case Constraint effects in Kurdish. Lingua, 120(3), 693-716.
• Karimi, Y. (2013). Extending defective intervention effects. The Linguistic Review, 30(1), 51-78.
• Laka,I. (2006). Deriving split ergativity in the progressive: The case of Basque. In Ergativity: Emerging issues, eds. Alana Johns, Diane Massam and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 173-196. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Legate, J. (2008) Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39:55-101.
• Legate,J. (2006). Split absolutive. In Ergativity: emerging issues, ed. Alana Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 143-171. Dordrecht. Springer.
• Legate,J. (2012). ‘Types of Ergativity’, Lingua 181—191
• Marantz,A. (1991). Case and Licensing. In G. F. Westphal, B. Ao, & H.-R. Chao (Ed.), ESCOL '91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (pp. 234-253). Baltımore: Ohio State University, University of Maryland.
• Massam,D. (2006). ‘Neither absolutive nor ergative is nominative or accusative’, in Alana Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije (eds), Ergativity: Emerging Issues. Dordrecht: Springer, 27-46.
• Nash,L. (1996). The internal ergative subject hypothesis. Paper presented at Proceeding of NELS 26, Harvard University and MIT.
• Nash,L. (2015). On the structural source of split ergativity and ergative case in Georgian.In Oxford handbook of ergativity, eds. Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Travis, Oxford University Press.
• Shafai, I., Dabirmoghaddam, M. (2019). A Syntactic Analysis of Ergative Case Marking in some Iranian Languages: A minimalist View. ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research), 11(31), 77-108. doi: 10.22051/jlr.2018.17217.1415
• Stilo,D. (1981). The Tati language group in the sociolinguistic context of Northwestern Iran.Iranian Studies XIV:137–187. – Cited on p. 160
• Ura,H. (2006). A parametric syntax of aspectually conditioned split-ergativity. In Ergativity: emerging issues, eds. Alana Johns, Diane Massam Juvenal Ndayiragije,111–141. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Woolford, E. (1997). Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective and accusative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15:181-227.
• Woolford,E. (2006). Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 37 (1), 111-130.
• Woolford,E. (2015). Ergativity and Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 46(3):489-531
• Yar-Shater,E. (1969). A Grammar of Southern Tati. The Hague: Mouton.